Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Refusal option before battle?


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#21 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,235 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 14 December 2015 - 09:18 AM

What are the current problems here - why is a 'decline to play' option even considered necessary? In my opinion, not liking the ELO range or style of your opponent is not a valid reason to avoid playing them. I'm struggling to think of any good reason why someone should be able to reject their opponent. Could someone enlighten me?

There's a lot of work being talked about here for absolutely no gain when there are numerous other changes that I would consider useful. In fact the only effect this change would have is to increase wait times. (edit - and to enable far more effective cheating via ELO inflation)

#22 Jade K

Jade K

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 14 December 2015 - 03:10 PM

 

have a problem with kids playing?

 

why? are they better than you?

 

why don't u ask lennox lewis to fight against mickey bey?

 


Edited by Jade K, 14 December 2015 - 03:13 PM.


#23 tobermoryx

tobermoryx

    Captain

  • Moderators
  • 783 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 14 December 2015 - 07:43 PM

I'm struggling to think of any good reason why someone should be able to reject their opponent. Could someone enlighten me?

 

If the opponent has been reported for abusive chat or draw refusal the only valid reasons IMO 


  • Lonello and tomato123456 like this

#24 astros

astros

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,224 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 14 December 2015 - 07:45 PM

What are the current problems here - why is a 'decline to play' option even considered necessary? In my opinion, not liking the ELO range or style of your opponent is not a valid reason to avoid playing them. I'm struggling to think of any good reason why someone should be able to reject their opponent. Could someone enlighten me?

There's a lot of work being talked about here for absolutely no gain when there are numerous other changes that I would consider useful. In fact the only effect this change would have is to increase wait times. (edit - and to enable far more effective cheating via ELO inflation)

Some players always refuse draws in quick arena, I would prefer to not play those people. However, this debate is silly.

 

Theoretically, if someone refused to play strong players and only faced opponents below 300 ELO this would not affect their ELO. Their win percentage would increase, but there ELO in the long run would not because they would gain fewer points for a win.


3 - 0

#25 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,215 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 14 December 2015 - 10:22 PM

If the opponent has been reported for abusive chat or draw refusal the only valid reasons IMO


Yes, and with oodles of cases behind us already there could be many of these matchups happen.

If we only allow the Decline option to operate downwardly (or at most 50 points higher), then the system would tend to protect the higher ranks while punishing bad players a little, at least, and while retaining the need for everyone else to play whomever the computer matched them up against.
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#26 Caesar101

Caesar101

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Miner

Posted 15 December 2015 - 05:25 AM

why don't u ask lennox lewis to fight against mickey bey?

 

if a bunch of kids settle at the bronze spy level, then thats their problem. If youre not good enough to get above that level, then thats your problem...


Edited by Caesar101, 15 December 2015 - 05:26 AM.


#27 Jade K

Jade K

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 15 December 2015 - 07:26 AM

Exactly, when ppl like u feel that it is just ur own problem, and nobody does anything to seek to improve the system, u have a nice ranking system full of cheats and multiple acct users going on for years counting becos everyone minds their own problem

Dont waste my time, time is precious.

#28 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,235 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 16 December 2015 - 09:18 AM

>If the opponent has been reported for abusive chat or draw refusal the only valid reasons IMO

I agree with tobermoryx. If the system operated where only players 'convicted' of offences could be declined then this would be a half decent initiative. But it's a very long-winded solution. How about just giving abusive players proper punishments? Forget light sentences and warning letters. Make this behaviour unacceptable. It will cut down massively on these cases and half MTs workload.

#29 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,215 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 16 December 2015 - 05:18 PM

The plan of tobermoryx indeed hits directly upon the bad guys.

We could call it a "Community Info" button, perhaps. Press it to find out all the bad stuff on everyone. In the box that would then appear there could be lines for:

Abusive Behavior
Draw Refusals
Reported Disconnects

In addition to the information there would be a Decline to Play button inside the Community Info box that would be active when the numbers for any of the above were more than 0. If there were anything higher than a 0, that player could be declined by every opponent. If the numbers were all 0, then no one would be allowed to decline to play this person.

Now, the work load for the MT is a concern for me, naturally, but if we just employed the simple 12 month sunset principle to erase all violations, then there wouldn't be anything for the MT to remove, because the numbers would remove themselves in this Community Info (CI) box.

All the above numbers in the (CI) box would be for convictions that have run through the MT. We convict for Abusive Behavior and Draw Refusal already, so the only thing we would be adding is the Disconnecting violation. As this is a far more numerous event than draw refusal, this line might have to hold off. But even still, the request we make to send an email to the player for any violation could simply be to increase the specific CI number for that player instead. It's an interesting thought.
  • Lonello likes this
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#30 TheOptician

TheOptician

    General

  • Tournament Manager
  • 2,235 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 16 December 2015 - 06:41 PM

There is of course limited value in this. As soon as an abusive player gets a conviction they will start a fresh account. While multiple accounts are allowed, this problem will always remain. For this reason I don't think the decline to play option will have much impact.

If multiple accounts cannot be prevented at source then what really needs to happen is that new accounts need to be disadvantaged, so that a much larger investment is required by a player to get a multiple account up and running.

Exactly how this is achieved I don't know. I realise I'm only pointing out that this suggestion won't have much effect, as opposed to suggesting something that will. Still, this initiative will at least mean that abusive players won't last long before they are forced to retire their current account, or face the dim prospect of being unable to abuse further...

#31 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,215 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 16 December 2015 - 10:51 PM

TheO, the number one problem on the site is that we don't have the administrators fully on board with fixing this issue of multiple accounts.

Even though it's a clear rule on the site not to have multiple accounts, they have never wanted to enforce it. We should at least require a valid email and then to do a response check on it every six to twelve months.

On the other hand, the positive thing now is that they are actually doing some programming on the new app these days.

No one likes the new app, but if they would present it with a fix for the double chase and at least begin to combat the multiple account issue, I think there'd be a lots of fans won to the new app by that.
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users